Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[Francis M 2]

Sorry about the rant. I didn't mean to go off like that but I'm just sick of people trying to argue morality based on wether or not they do or don't do such and such. It's a very ambiguous and unsupportable thing to just argue morality from a specific viewpoint. Some of these arguments boil down to I'm rigt because I say so. I should've first asked what the point of te question was. Are we talking about all killing is cruel to begin with? Are we talking about how animals are kept (general well being) before their killed? Are we comparing farming against hunting as far as envirornmental impact?

But don't you think animal welfare should be good?

I don't mean to sound flipant about this Monique but were do we draw the line on what animals well being we consider and which ones we don't. Or for that matter other organisms. This is exactly why the question first posted degenerates into the threads we see here.

BTW It's the same Francis M from before I just had to register from my home e-mail instead of work Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Monique]

I don't mean to sound flipant about this Monique but were do we draw the line on what animals well being we consider and which ones we don't. Or for that matter other organisms. This is exactly why the question first posted degenerates into the threads we see here.

One can go into many details, about bugs and microbes, but what I think that should be done is opening the book on livestock treatment. How are animals treated from being born to being slaughtered. I think the discussion should be opened and that farmers have to abide to welfare laws. I'm not an expert on the issue of animal culturing, it is a black box to me. What are the laws on livestock treatment, which agency inspects whether the laws are abided by and where do I find the information on how livestock is treated overall.

 

[Dissident Dan]

That said, you can set up any experiment in science to get any result you want - so I suppose if you want you could call instability, famine, and poverty your criteria and a system that "works" is one that causes these things. But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It seems self-evident that not starving to death is, de facto, a good thing. Suffering is a bad thing (at least, I'd prefer not to suffer...). Similarly, it'd be pretty easy for me to successfully develop a model that doesn't accurately predict the orbits of the planets. But what would the point of that be?

Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems trivially self-evident to me.

Well, ethics is all about values, but you are assuming the values from the get-go, thereby having a "conclusion" that is just your premises.

To explain this further, you choose to consider human suffering, but not non-human suffering. This is a value choice, which is a goal of ethics, but it is presumed from the beginning in your argument.

Also, you define your ethical criterion in respect to whole societies, rather than individuals...what makes the society, as a whole thrive. I'm not saying that this is wrong or right, but that it is assumed in your argument from the beginning, thereby skipping a vast portion of ethical reasoning.

 

[learningphysics]

Ah but that's where you're wrong. Human society would fall apart if no one trusted anyone (which, guess what, is going to happen if we start to eat each other.)

This could be set up so that the vast majority of humans are unaffected, and only a select few from a restricted group can possibly end up as food. Most people would be unaffected, and needn't fear becoming food. Society would continue the same for the most part.

If we started to eat each other we'd end up traveling back down the technological chain. Lions eating themselves isn't so much a problem because they're already that low on the chain.

I really don't understand what you mean here...

The thing is: Do you really think humans are 'above' eating meat? Under what conditions would it be moral? (You and a puppy are stuck at the bottom of the well. If you eat the puppy you are rescued, if you don't you both die.)

I'll assume for the sake of this discussion that the life being eaten, experience 0 pain and suffering. I personally wouldn't eat the puppy... But I'd have to say in this situation it is morally acceptable to eat the puppy... But replace the puppy with a human, and it's morally acceptable to eat the human (as both would die anyway).

 

[sheepdog]

missing something

Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems trivially self-evident to me.


And I missed this before: OMG, I'm flabberghasted -- why do we need morality? I don't know what to say. Are you an anarchist? (but hey, at least it means you can't argue eating meat is immoral!)

In any case, the ethical theory tells you why an action is good. Otherwise, its just "I said so!" and anarchy is the result (and this discussion is pointless). An ethical code tells you what actions are good and unless you choose it arbitrarily (The Ten Commadments), why? is an important consideration.

That's right russ_watters, you're missing something.

Eating vegetarian is morality. There is no separate morality used to judge something else. No, anarchy does not result. Nature is the result. Yes, this discussion is pointless, that you got right. An ethical code is itself the essential arbitrary. Ethics are arbitrary. Morality is arbitrary. None of these can possibility reveal what is good and what is not.

 

[sheepdog]

Hitler's reasons

Pain and suffering for whom? I didn't specify in my explanation, but morality was created by humans, for humans and as such serves humans, first and foremost. Even if you extened it evenly to the animal kingdom, you'd still have problems: like lions (brought up before, but never adequately dealt with). Like I said before, you have your work cut out for you, developing an entirely new moral theory/code that somehow allows lions to kill deer, but doesn't allow humans to.

Reading this in isolation it makes complete sense to me. How you can defend morality a few sentences later is baffling.

Morality is the word who'se definition is "a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct." When you take what is "useful" or "sensible" to make equations describing the motion of a cannon-ball, you get "physics." Similarly, when you take what is "useful" or "sensible" in the ideas of right and wrong conduct, you get "morals." Its simply the definition of the word.

Another good point. Every system is equally arbitrary

But people don't always agree: what if I don't agree? How do we remedy that? ... They are not arbitrary (which does not imply they can't be debated). ... Its historically inaccurate: Hitler's rule was chaotic from start to finish. It did not work and was not correct in any way, shape, or form. But even worse, Hitler's morality was not universal! It didn't apply to all humans, only his chosen few.

You are correct that we do agree upon much. But not on the point, the essence, of the matter.

My reading of the rise of the Nazis would indicate that, from a German's perspective they brought considerable relief from a much more chaotic situation.

But it isn't necessary to even consider the historical facts. All you need recognize is that Hitler was popular with Germans, i.e., they considered his activities "moral". What do you think they would have said, "He's an immoral butcher but I like him!" No, they said, "Here's someone finally living up to my moral standards."

Even moreso, you claim to be concerned with a universal, absolute, morality and at the same time you have decided that "universal" means all people, and does not include animals or other life forms. Websters defines "absolute" as "actual, real". Is that what you mean by absolute morality? The actual, real morality that was also invented and defined by humans for human benefit? What you call universal and absolute is no more absolute than a game of Dungeons and Dragons. Just be people invented and defined Dungeons and Dragons doesn't mean there actually are any real Dungeon or Dragons. What we invent and define is the opposite, the exact antithesis, of absolute.

Arbitrary means without reason: morality based on what works has a reason and is therefore not arbitary.

Websters, again, defines arbitrary as Exercised according to one's own will or caprice, and therefore conveying a notion of a tendency to abuse the possession of power. Reasons do not make it any less arbitrary. Hitler had his reasons.

 

[sheepdog]

Goodness

This thread has considered the questions, "Should we eat meat?" and, "When is it wrong to kill?" These questions resulted in an explosion of mental systems called "ethics" and "morality" and such.

Then the question, "What should we take from Nature?" was asked. It is the same question as the previous ones framed more generally. It has the same answer, yet no answer came. Why not? Perhaps they were not prepared with a system with which to respond. Oh, well. I'm sure it's only a matter of time ...

Now I would pose yet one more question that generalizes upon the others again.

"Where is there Goodness?"

The vegetarian has considered this question and seen clearly that the overwhelming abundance of Goodness she finds outside of her head trivializes everything within it. The blinding all encompassing Goodness with which she is surrounded utterly and totally dwarfs the tiny noises in her head. It is then when the paradigm shifted, then when all mental systems disappeared, and vegetarianism inevitably followed.

 

[physicsisphirst]

OMG, I'm flabberghasted -- why do we need morality? I don't know what to say.

such helplessness, russ!
all i said was that we didn't need an ethical theory to deal with what was a rather simple situation. anyway, i elaborate a bit in the next post.

I think you just answered your own question with that logical contradiction.

Nazi Germany in particular was exceedingly unstable, and that was a direct result of Hitler's morality.

the 'logical contradiction' escaped me - what was it? the phrase "temporary stability"?

so are you now saying that a moral society is one that is essentially non-violent and exhibits longterm stability? I'm just curious (and am not necessarily in disagreement though i was under the impression that violent societies mentioned earlier were quite stable for considerable lengths of time).

Yes! This is why so many vegitarian arguments are straw-men (even unintentional) - they utterly fail to grasp/address this point.

really russ! all loseyourname has provided are some alternate ways of killing. the issue of suffering hasn't even been touched, even though i have pointed out that the suffering happens over a period of time far, far greater than it takes to do the killing. as monique points out in post #1151 it's not all about the way of dying, it is also about the quality of life the animal has had

but you guys won't even look at the links such as the ones derek1 presented:

http://www.hfa.org/campaigns/tribarticle.html
http://www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors/
http://www.EggCruelty.com
http://www.MercyForAnimals.org/WeaverBros/overview.asp
http://www.MeetYourMeat.com

don't you think that it makes sense to argue from a base of existing knowledge rather than producing theoretical constructs from the imagination and then getting all flabberghasted because some of us who do know what happens out there disagree with you?

 

[physicsisphirst]

Yes! God yes! How can you have moral actions without a system of morality? Telling me "suffice it to say" tells me nothing. Why is it of benefit to us not to kill?

i think there are many answers to this depending on your system of values, but you yourself said that you will not kill unless you have a good reason (eg you are endangered or you think it is nourishment). so my point still remains that you don't need any fancy ethical theories here - just a simple understanding that you will not kill unless you have a need to. the benefit to you presumably is that you consider killing without sufficient reason to be cruel or immoral or something like that and by not killing unnecessarily you benefit yourself by not being cruel or immoral or something like that. are we in agreement with this?

If you don't think we need an ethical system to deal with whether or not killing is good, well fine for you! Without a system, how exactly is it that you determine what is good and what is bad? Again, if it is just intuition, what do you do when your intuition doesn't agree with mine?

if you want to consider what i have just written an ethical system, go ahead. if you don't, it doesn't matter to me, because i think you have stated your criteria fairly clearly - you will not kill unless you have a sufficient reason to (like those bugs destroying your garden or those people attacking you etc). once again, is this sufficient for us to agree on, without insisting on some formal and complex ethical system?

If all you are going to say is "not killing can be a benefit to the one who doesn't kill," you aren't going to get far. I don't base my concept of what is right by what is of benefit to me.

i think to some extent you do. you are willing to kill bugs that destroy your garden. i think you are killing those bugs not so much for the benefit of your garden (and its "right to life"), but because you want to keep your garden.

What won't happen? You never said what it is that you are trying to avoid. Is it animal suffering? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. Is it ecosystem destruction? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. The only possible issue with eating meat that can only be alleviated by not eating meat is the killing of the animals themselves. Do you see where I'm going yet again? This is only a problem if you grant animal rights or if you say that all killing of any kind is wrong. You continually say that you are not claiming either. So what is it that you are claiming?

yes we know that you have these ingenious ways of killing humanely and you hopefully want to do away with factory farming to remove both the suffering and the ecodamage. but if we didn't eat meat we wouldn't have these problems caused by the industries in the first place, right?

It is inconsistent to say that you simply want to alleviate ecosystem destruction or animal suffering and then not accept a solution that does these things while leaving the practice of eating meat intact.

well i don't really see why you think I'm not accepting these alternate solutions. if you want to eat meat, do as suggested by that guy in my earlier post. wait till the animal dies, then eat. make sure that there are only a few animals on small farms and you'll do the ecosystem a favor too.

When you do not accept solutions unless they include not eating meat, it becomes clear that neither the alleviation of ecosystem destruction nor of animal suffering is your real aim. Your aim is simply to end the eating of meat, but you've run out of reasons to do so.

do you arrive at this conclusion through a process of elimination or wishful thinking?

Granted, it is still one way to bring about the results that you say you want to bring about. That's fine. But what reason is there to prefer this solution over other solutions? If someone else solves the problem a different way, what reason do you have to say that what they are doing is wrong?

well you haven't exactly solved the problem, you have only suggested some solutions along the lines of the killing (you really haven't dealt with the eco-issue, at least not in these recent exchanges). i have also offered a solution by which both the eco-problem and the suffering will be terminated. are your arguments against my solution essentially:
1) there are other solutions
2) there is a secret agenda to stop all killing

I'm sorry, but none of this is necessary. To begin with, I've lived on farms and I've never seen any mistreatment. I don't doubt that it exists in some places, but I'll repeat what I said before.

i don't think you understand that we are not talking about charlotte's web here. we are talking about factory farms. if you would actually research some of this rather than spin 'logical arguments', you would see that your not having 'seen any mistreatment' is hardly something to base an opinion on.

the problem we have here is that you won't look, therefore you can avoid the reality.

I would rather promote and enforce existing laws and, should I find out that one particular company is guilty of infractions, then I will no longer buy from them. I'm certainly not going to boycott an entire industry. Decent farmers do not deserve to lose business because of the immoral actions of their competitors.

then the very least you can do is see

http://www.themeatrix.com/

it is produced by some of your "decent farmers" who have been driven out of business by factory farms. if you investigate, perhaps you'll at least be enthusiastic about where you get your meat from and who you support.

I've said that I will recognize their right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly. I will not grant them the right to not be killed.

yes, yes that's fine. however, this at least answers the question i was asking - you at least grant them the "their right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly". now, exactly on what basis do you feel that animals have a "right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly".

If I have a reason to kill, I'll do it. I'm not opposed to the act itself.

yes we've established that several times now. however, the question remains, why do you think animals have a right to be treated humanely?

 

[physicsisphirst]

The vegetarian has considered this question and seen clearly that the overwhelming abundance of Goodness she finds outside of her head trivializes everything within it. The blinding all encompassing Goodness with which she is surrounded utterly and totally dwarfs the tiny noises in her head. It is then when the paradigm shifted, then when all mental systems disappeared, and vegetarianism inevitably followed.

i think there is this wonderful convenience in staying within mental systems - one can live in this fantasy world and ignore reality (and links LOL).

however, i find it curious that even within these mental systems

1) russ seems to think that the violent societies i named in post #1134 were not stable (even though they were so temporarily). i am unclear as to what he considers to be a society that is stable. if violent societies are not stable, then is it possible that non-violent ones are?

2) loseyourname has revealed in post #1141 that recognition will be granted to animals for "their right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly" which is interesting because in post #1012 he plainly says:

A person is an entity with rights. Animals do not have rights.

well, I'm not complaining of course - i see this not so much as contradiction, but rather as evolution.


in any case, i am very interested in learning what russ thinks is a stable society and knowing why loseyourname thinks that animals have the right to be treated humanely and have asked both these questions (but have not yet heard back from them, because at the time of this writing neither has seen my questions LOL).

 

[physicsisphirst]

What are the laws on livestock treatment, which agency inspects whether the laws are abided by and where do I find the information on how livestock is treated overall.

monique, the laws protecting livestock are very weak compared to dogs and cats generally. it is this way because people can make more money if they are allowed to get away taking shortcuts (eg you cannot castrate a dog without anaesthetic, but you can do this to cattle, sheep or pigs).

the laws are changing though as people become more aware of what actually happens "down on the farm". for instance, austria recently legislated very tough AW laws (an article from May of last year below on some of this).

progress may be slow, but it does seem to occur eventually when enough people learn what actually goes on.

in friendship,
prad


http://www.factoryfarming.com/issues_austria.htm
Austria enacts one of Europe's toughest animal rights laws

WILLIAM J. KOLE
Associated Press Writer
May 28, 2004

Hens will be free to run around barnyards, lions and tigers will vanish from circus acts, and Dobermans will sport what nature intended -- floppy ears and longer tails -- under a tough animal rights law adopted Thursday in Austria.

The anticruelty law, one of Europe's harshest, will ban pet owners from cropping their dogs' ears or tails, force farmers to uncage their chickens, and ensure that puppies and kittens no longer swelter in pet shop windows.

Violators will be subject to fines of $2,420, and in cases of extreme cruelty could be fined up to $18,160 and have their animals seized by the authorities.

Lawmakers, some holding stuffed toy animals, voted unanimously to enact the law, which takes effect in January and will be phased in over several years. Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel said Austria was sending a stern message to the rest of Europe and the world about respecting animals.

"Austria is taking the role of pioneer," Schuessel told parliament, vowing to press for similar legislation across the European Union. "This new law will give both producers and consumers a good feeling, and it lifts animal protection to the highest level internationally."

It's the latest example of how the animals rights issue is gaining attention across Europe:

* The European Commission has proposed a sweeping overhaul of EU regulations on transporting livestock across the continent to give more protection to the hundreds of thousands of animals that are shipped daily and to prevent deaths and abuse.

* In March, Hungary's parliament banned cockfighting and the breeding or sale of animals for fighting, and it made animal torture -- previously a misdemeanor -- a felony punishable by up to two years in prison.

* Last summer, the region of Catalonia, which passed Spain's first animal cruelty law in 1988, banned the killing of abandoned cats and dogs in animal shelters and raised fines for cruelty to as much as $24,200.

* Italy is considering a law that forbids sending horses to the slaughterhouse after their competitive careers are over, and Germany plans to phase out mass farming of caged chickens by the end of 2006.

Austrians' love for animals dates to imperial times, with the famed Lipizzaner stallions pampered as a source of national pride.

Aimed primarily at poultry and other livestock, Austria's new law also outlaws the use of lions and other wild animals in circuses and makes it illegal to restrain dogs with chains, choke collars or "invisible fences" that administer mild electric shocks to confine animals.

The measure enjoyed the support of all four main parties in the National Assembly, where Minister of Social Affairs Herbert Haupt drew laughter by holding up a stuffed toy dog while addressing lawmakers Thursday.

Haupt, a veterinarian, had pushed for the law since the 1980s. It still needs the president's signature, a formality given its unanimous passage.

"Animals and consumers are the clear winners with this law," said Ulrike Sima, a lawmaker specializing in animal protection issues for the opposition Socialist Party.

A key provision bans the widespread practice of confining chickens to small cages on farms and makes it a crime to bind cattle tightly with ropes.

Pet owners and breeders no longer will be allowed to crop puppies' ears or tails, a common practice with certain breeds such as Doberman pinschers. Sweden has banned the practice since 1989.

Invisible fences are out, too, though they're nowhere near as ubiquitous here as they are in U.S. suburbs.

"This is a first step in the right direction," said Andreas Sax of the Austrian animal rights organization Four Paws.

Sax said the law won't do enough to improve conditions for cattle and pigs, who often are injured in cramped pens with slatted floors, and he criticized some sections he said were too vague.

The Austrian Farm Federation opposed the law, arguing that it will increase costs for farmers and could lead to more imports of poultry from countries with looser restrictions.

Chicken farmers will be allowed several years to phase in the new rules. Those who recently invested in new cages will have until 2020 to turn their birds loose to run free inside fences.

The law calls for creating an animal rights ombudsman to oversee the treatment of animals on farms and in zoos, circuses and pet shops. Austria has an estimated 140,000 enterprises that breed or sell animals.

 

[Monique]

the laws are changing though as people become more aware of what actually happens "down on the farm".

I think we should have a topic on "what happens down on the farm".. everyone would be able to form their own opinion whether what happens there is acceptable or not.

Basing an opinion on the fact that shooting an animal through the head is a minimum pain death, does not say anything about the way an animal approaches that death in reality on farms.

 

[russ_watters]

I think we should have a topic on "what happens down on the farm".. everyone would be able to form their own opinion whether what happens there is acceptable or not.

Basing an opinion on the fact that shooting an animal through the head is a minimum pain death, does not say anything about the way an animal approaches that death in reality on farms.

I agree - addressing the actual conditions on the farm is a separate (though, admittedly, related) question from whether or not eating meat is OK.

 

[Zlex]

You know what Homer says; "If God didn't want us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them out of delicious meat."

**** 'em; I say, kill them and eat 'em. Sooner the better. Unenlightened lions and tigers say **** the cosmos every day.

You stick to murdering the young, green alfalfa sprouts, yearning to seek out the warm Sun, fine, it just means more assorted grilled meats for me.

Just remember that the next time you water your houseplants, and talk to them. To them, you're just another naked ape with a bottle of A1 sauce in his paws, only this time its 'Newmans' Best', and your only after the houseplants little cousins.

Hey, I have pet Goldfish, and I talk to them, too. Sometimes, they woefully watch me hog down a nice piece of grilled swordfish steak, and if they stare too long, I glare at them and say, "What are YOU lookin at? You guys are one sliced lemon away from me taking away your borrowed stardust, so watch yourself."

So, now you know what your houseplants feel like when you are cosmically munching down on that hygroscopically grown organic sprout sandwich.

 

[Francis M]

O.K. folks. Let's put the light on the right part of the subject here. It was hit upon earlier. It seems to me in these posts that we're getting to the heart of the vegitarian argument. Not so much that killing an animal for food is wrong or right but how we treat them up to that point. IS this the crux of the argument? If so then wether eating meat is right or wrong shouldn't be the question but should be is eating meat of animals treated badly right or wrong. OR are we still talking about wether killing period is right or wrong. We've fallen into a trap of projecting our reasoning, onto animals that don't reason the way we do (if you believe animals other than us are self aware and or reason. I think some are or very close, but that's another argument). But let's face it folks lions don't sit down with gazelles and work out some kind of contract on who or how many of the herd will get hunted and killed. They don't go just after the old. THey pick off the young of a herd also. Now where is the morality or ethics in that? There isn't any, it's the law of nature. Whaterver food is easiest to get, whatever you can get that gives you the most sustenance with the least expenditure of energy to get it. Enviornmental and evolutionary pressure regulate prey size and therefore regulate preditor size (population wise) not reasoning, not ethics, not morals. SO can we please stop projecting our emotions, our morals and our ethics onto other animals in this argument? It just doesn't support the argument for wether eating meat is good/bad, right/wrong.

yes we know that you have these ingenious ways of killing humanely and you hopefully want to do away with factory farming to remove both the suffering and the ecodamage. but if we didn't eat meat we wouldn't have these problems caused by the industries in the first place, right?
I hate to burst your bubble but WRONG.

Can we stop using "Factory Farming" just in reference to these huge slaughter houses. It needs to apply to the huge crops of wheat and corn I see also. These are aslo "Factory Farms" and can cause ecodamage as well. Eating meat and industry pollution are slightly connected issues in the fact that the industries connected with meat processing and raising meat pollute. But the garment industry pollutes. SO does the auto industry and the list can go on. That connection doesn't support your argument.

 

[Be Happy!]

I'm sorry, but none of this is necessary. To begin with, I've lived on farms and I've never seen any mistreatment. I don't doubt that it exists in some places, but I'll repeat what I said before. That is the case with any industry... Decent farmers do not deserve to lose business because of the immoral actions of their competitors.

I am glad to hear that you have not witnessed animal cruelty on farms. I am sad to say that small farms are quickly becoming a thing of the past and these days factory farms are replacing the mom and pop farms. According to USDA figures, almost 11 Billion animals are raised for food in the US...and over 95%of those animals are on factory farms. To get a real vision of how animals are raised and slaughtered visit www.MeetYourMeat.com (but somehow i have a feeling that you are going to say that the video only shows a few instances and that on a mass scale that doesn't really happen-- i hope that you are not so naive!)

The horrific truth is that there is no time to raise and kill animals "humanely" so you do what is fastest...you maybe interested in an article about this on www.CNN.com[/url] : [PLAIN]http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/11/chicken.cruelty.ap/index.html

of particular relevancy to you would be this:
The fired workers told Hardy County prosecutor Lucas See in August that they were expected to hang 28 to 33 live birds per minute and it was faster to toss some of them aside than to wring their necks the proper way.

BTW, I was most interested to read about derek1's accounts of going to a factory farm to investigate the treatment of animals and what he found was shocking! (see post #995)

If you have watched the video, read the article and done some more research on this, and still choose to live in a bubble and think that the animals you eat have not suffered tremendously, then I have no choice but to think that your arguments are selfishly motivated. I hope this is not the case, and hope that we can have a productive conversation about this very important issue.


Sangeeta

 

[Be Happy!]

One can go into many details, about bugs and microbes, but what I think that should be done is opening the book on livestock treatment. How are animals treated from being born to being slaughtered. I think the discussion should be opened and that farmers have to abide to welfare laws. I'm not an expert on the issue of animal culturing, it is a black box to me. What are the laws on livestock treatment, which agency inspects whether the laws are abided by and where do I find the information on how livestock is treated overall.

Hi Monique!

It's nice to see you in our discussion!

The Animal Welfare Act does exist in the US, but it's a joke and doesn't do much to protect animals...it was basically designed for animals in laboratories, but it doesn't even require that the animals be given pain killers (!) not to mention that it neglects to include rats, mice and birds under it's meager protection.

The Humane Slaughter Act exists, but again, it's is rarely enforced and it doesn't give any guidelines on how animals should be raised: http://www.peta.org/feat/usda/ Suffice it to say, food animals have extremely minimal to no protection under US laws. Interestingly enough, if you do the types of things which are done to animals raised for food to dogs and cats you could go to jail!

But there is hope! In over 30 US states, animal cruelty is a felony, slowly but surely people are getting prosecuted for mistreating animals other than those designated to be "pets."...Foie Gras is banned in CA and pig gestation crates were banned a few years ago in Florida!

For a more extensive look at the law and how it pertains to animals, please check out this link: http://www.cok.net/abol/16/04.php it is an interview with David Wolfson, Esq., who is the author of Beyond the Law: Agribusiness and the Systemic Abuse of Animals Raised for Food or Food Production, co-author of the chapter “Foxes in the Hen House; Animals, Agribusiness and the Law, A Modern American Fable” in Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, and Lecturer in Animal Law at Harvard Law School…of particular interest to people on this forum is this part of the interview:
Q. Can you give a brief overview of the ways in which abusive treatment of animals within agribusiness have been exempted from legal protection?

A. Sure. I like to think of a farmed animal’s life in three stages: on the farm, during transport and slaughter. There is no federal law governing the welfare of farmed animals on the farm, and the federal laws relating to transport and slaughter are very problematic; for example, the federal transport law has been determined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) not to apply to trucks and the humane slaughter law does not apply to chickens (as a result of the USDA defining “livestock” to exclude chickens) and is very poorly enforced.

Given that the vast majority of an animal’s life is on the farm, the fact that there is no federal law governing this period is very troubling. It means that any protection must come from the states and here is where the real problem lies. State anti-cruelty laws fall into two categories: First, anti-cruelty laws that ostensibly apply to farmed animals but as a practical matter are not used to regulate common farming practices (such as the veal crate, battery cage and gestation crate) and which are highly problematic anyway (weak penalties, enforced by district attorneys who have no interest, limited access to animal production facilities, and so on), and second, anti-cruelty statutes that specifically exempt common farming practices. The majority of states fall into the second category—they have amended their anti-cruelty statutes to exempt common farming practices. This means that farmed animals in such states are literally beyond the law and any common practice, no matter how horrifying, is legal.

In Europe though, much of the practices that are employed in the US factory farming industry are banned...as physicsisphirst has posted, Europe is way ahead of the game!


Sangeeta

 

[sheepdog]

conincedences

SO can we please stop projecting our emotions, our morals and our ethics onto other animals in this argument? It just doesn't support the argument for wether eating meat is good/bad, right/wrong.

Can we stop using "Factory Farming" just in reference to these huge slaughter houses. It needs to apply to the huge crops of wheat and corn I see also. These are aslo "Factory Farms" and can cause ecodamage as well. Eating meat and industry pollution are slightly connected issues in the fact that the industries connected with meat processing and raising meat pollute. But the garment industry pollutes. SO does the auto industry and the list can go on. That connection doesn't support your argument.

Life is filled with magical conincidences. A friend just today sent to me this fragment of a poem by Robinson Jeffers, without having read any of this thread:

[Nature] knows the people are a tide
That swells and in time will ebb, and all
Their works dissolve... As for us:
We must uncenter our minds from ourselves;
We must unhumanize our views a little, and become confident
As the rock and ocean that we were made from.

You must see something of your words in these, FrancisM. I certainly see all of my heart within them. Do they "support the argument" or do they reveal the argument to be completely irrelevant and a painful distraction?

May you find the support you seek.

 

[Francis M]

I see arguments against eating meat based on the idea that animals raised for food are treated poorly and the slaughter is painful.
I see arguments against eating meat based on the idea that slaughter houses pollute the enviornment.
I even see the typical consentration on red meat and poultry with no regard to fishing.

The original question was "should we eat meat. Yes or No". Question to the question, A) what kind of meat and B) yes or no based on what criteria?

Because it seems to me that if we could solve the problems in the first part of my post there would be no reason not to eat meat as well as veggies.

It seems that this question wether posed to intentionally or not as brought up the meatless = guiltless argument which never was nor ever will be true. WE, all of us, have to get away from that emotionally charged assosiation otherwise this post goes round and round and round and does nothing except create animosity (which I'd really like to see avoided).

 

[Dissident Dan]

Francis,

I think that if you look at some of the previous posts made by myself, physicsisphirst, and Be Happy!, you'll see that most, if not all, of your points have already been addressed.

----------------------------------

I see that people are wanting to separate the questions of eating meat and the treatment of farmed animals. If you want to boil the question down to the ethical characteristics of putting a certain classification of material into one's digestive system, regardless of the related conditions, you can, but what is the point? I don't think that anyone will ethically object to you eating road kill (although you might get "Gross!" as a reaction).

To make the question useful, it has to be grounded in reality. And to ground it in reality, you have to make the connection between eating the meat and what had to happen in order for you to eat it. That means the intense suffering of factory farming, transportation, and slaughter.

 

[physicsisphirst]

I see arguments against eating meat based on the idea that animals raised for food are treated poorly and the slaughter is painful.

quite so.

I see arguments against eating meat based on the idea that slaughter houses pollute the enviornment.

no, slaughterhouses themselves don't really pollute the environment too much. the pollution occurs well before the animals are shipped there from factory farms.

I even see the typical consentration on red meat and poultry with no regard to fishing.

we can talk about fishing too, but let's finish up the meat stuff first since we are well into it.

Because it seems to me that if we could solve the problems in the first part of my post there would be no reason not to eat meat as well as veggies.

are you trying to argue that absolutely everything living has one of those right to life contracts and therefore nothing should kill it? this is similar to what russ presented way back in post #932:

if it is wrong for me to kill a cow, then it is wrong for a lion to kill a cow. Either the cow has a right to life or it doesn't.

(loseyourname tried 'defending' russ on this in post #962.)

are you applying their reasoning to vegetables?

It seems that this question wether posed to intentionally or not as brought up the meatless = guiltless argument which never was nor ever will be true.

why can it not be true that meatless = guiltless (at least with respect to the animals that are eaten)?
if you know that your eating meat is causing the suffering of animals (and destroying the environment, not to mention putting a terrible strain on healthcare), are you not somewhat guilty to continue? of course, if you don't know all this then the situation may be different, but the very least you could do is investigate the matter properly especially since some people in this thread have been very helpful in providing a starting point with links such as these:

http://www.hfa.org/campaigns/tribarticle.html
http://www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors/
http://www.EggCruelty.com
http://www.MercyForAnimals.org/WeaverBros/overview.asp
http://www.MeetYourMeat.com

WE, all of us, have to get away from that emotionally charged assosiation otherwise this post goes round and round and round and does nothing except create animosity (which I'd really like to see avoided).

francis, the only person who has gotten all emotional within the past 25 posts is this Francis M individual, but then this Francis M 2 individual showed up and apologized for the former's ranting so it's all cool again, i guess. everyone else seems to be doing just fine and i don't think there is any animosity. rather there have been some really excellent posts along the way including part of your post #1170 where you make the rather good observation:

If so then wether eating meat is right or wrong shouldn't be the question but should be is eating meat of animals treated badly right or wrong.

(mind you your continuation about "factory farming" really doesn't make much sense, but we can discuss the ramifications of a pig or chicken factory farm vs a wheat or a corn factory farm later if you wish to.)

also, please understand that while some people are simply arguing on a forum for the sake of trying to construct clever responses, there are others who, because they work investigatively in the field, are aware of the atrocities that animals routinely endure. to them, it is a matter of great moral importance (as sheepdog has eloquently expressed in several posts) and not merely a trivial argument conjured up in pixelspace.

a belated welcome to the thread, btw!

 

[physicsisphirst]

To make the question useful, it has to be grounded in reality. And to ground it in reality, you have to make the connection between eating the meat and what had to happen in order for you to eat it. That means the intense suffering of factory farming, transportation, and slaughter.

this is the real point of course.
it is simple to ask the question "should we eat meat?", but in order to answer it properly, one does need to understand the reality of what is involved in eating meat in our society.
the 'eat meat' part involves the horrendous treatment of animals both before and during slaughter. it is a matter that cannot simply be argued away through attempted 'logical constructs'; rather it does determine to what extent we can consider ourselves to be ethical.

 

[sheepdog]

what had to happen

To make the question useful, it has to be grounded in reality. And to ground it in reality, you have to make the connection between eating the meat and what had to happen in order for you to eat it. That means the intense suffering of factory farming, transportation, and slaughter.

Yes, that's true. Reality is the reference, all of it, as you say. And I understand the focus on the horrendous, outrageous conditions in factory farming which must be stopped.

But I would like to raise another warning: be careful what you wish for. Yes, the Europeans are doing better than we in ending factory farming. But this may also have the unfortunate side effect of making meat eating even more acceptable.

Suppose that instead of the current factory farms and "free-range" farms, they were replaced with plants in which the animals at the moment of birth were decerebrated and then raised on life support systems without neurological function above the brainstem. This isn't entirely preposterous. It could be very economical to produce meat in this way. Certainly there would no longer be any suffering because there would be no brain function to suffer. Suppose also that the production is perfectly clean, without pollution. Would this meat be acceptable to eat since there was no suffering?

And further suppose that these practices became so widespread that they replaced all other food animal practices. And suppose that all animals were systematically eliminated, in a humane way, from the planet, because they were deemed "unnecessary" and a source of contention with animal rights people. Would this be acceptable since there was now no suffering, since no animals?

My point is that it isn't enough to say that we must reduce suffering, although it is true that we must do that. But if we reduce suffering by eliminating all that may suffer then we have made a mistake as severe as is indifference to the suffering. Clearly we must act against suffering and at the same time we must preserve the potential to suffer. You see?

One insidious method of eliminating suffering is by changing the nature of the animal so that it no longer experiences life in its original way. Its ability to suffer as it did is removed from its character. Animals are bred and domesticated to tolerate confinement and utilitarianism. Even if kept in conditions in which they do not suffer when so bred the meat they provide comes at too high a price in another vital sense.

If you only argue that suffering must be decreased it is easy for the stupid to think that if the sufferer is eliminated then you will be satisfied. Do not allow them that impression. It should be clearly understood that addressing suffering is necessary but far from sufficient by itself. This is true for environmental considerations as well. And for health considerations, and so on. For each criteria the potential is unlimited for humans to devise clever artificial fixes for each one individually. Every clever artificial solution continues on the path that has lead to factory farms and can only lead to more of the same. We do not fix mistakes by repeating them.

Vegetarianism is a manifest rejection of all such clever artificial solutions. It is a determined end to otherwise endless repetition of our prior mistakes. This is why we will always frustrate those who seek the "what if we do this ..." solutions. They would have us continue the status quo with minor adjustments. The vegetarian seeks the end of the status quo. It is a revolution.

 

[JonahHex]

Yup, an evangelical revolution. To summarize: "I'm right. You're wrong. I'm going to enforce my righteousness upon you by making you suffer financially (fines) and and physically (imprisonment). If you resist my righteousness, I will send people with guns. You will soon see the light and understand that it is wrong for anyone, or anything, except you, to suffer."

 

[sheepdog]

Yup, an evangelical revolution. To summarize: "I'm right. You're wrong. I'm going to enforce my righteousness upon you by making you suffer financially (fines) and and physically (imprisonment). If you resist my righteousness, I will send people with guns. You will soon see the light and understand that it is wrong for anyone, or anything, except you, to suffer."

A good example of the fact that the paranoid fear most what is most to be feared about themselves.

 

[JonahHex]

LMFAO

Yep, you're right, I'm wrong.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean you're not out to get me.

"Should we eat meat?" Who's "we?" Do you have a rat in your pocket?

Should I eat meat? Yes. Should you eat meat? Who cares? Eat whatever you want. In the meantime, keep your rat in your pocket along with your revolution.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Jonah,

I wonder what you hope to accomplish by posting in this thread. You do not seem interested in honest debate about the subject. It appears that you just came to satisfy the egotistic urge to to dismiss the thread without even reading through it, guided by your prejudices.

 

[Loren Booda]

What if we were able to synthesize exactly dead animals from vegetable protein, lipids and minerals, just as we would have the ability to create animal life from scratch? Is taking of life the sin, or is it disrespecting the dead?

 

[sheepdog]

the artificial cannibal

What if we were able to synthesize exactly dead animals from vegetable protein, lipids and minerals, just as we would have the ability to create animal life from scratch? Is taking of life the sin, or is it disrespecting the dead?

Even better, what if we were able to synthesis dead people from vegetable protein, lipids and minerals? Is it meat for the eating?

Yes, we have the potential for creating a future as bizarre as can be imagined, leaving Nature as we know it, and certainly as ourforebearers knew it, a distant memory never to be seen again. But is it the future in which you would want to live?

Vegetarianism is not just about not eating meat. It is about respecting Nature in every way.

 

[Monique]

"Should we eat meat?" Who's "we?" Do you have a rat in your pocket?

Should I eat meat? Yes. Should you eat meat? Who cares? Eat whatever you want. In the meantime, keep your rat in your pocket along with your revolution.

How would you answer the question "Should we recycle plastic bottles" It's a question that relates to everybody and ultimately comes back to you.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Vegetarianism is not just about not eating meat. It is about respecting Nature in every way.

Well, I would disagree with you on that.

What if we were able to synthesize exactly dead animals from vegetable protein, lipids and minerals, just as we would have the ability to create animal life from scratch? Is taking of life the sin, or is it disrespecting the dead?

Well, one could still consider the healthiness of consuming the "animals" an ethical issue, as well as the probable resource inefficiency, but other than that, I wouldn't care.

My whole ethical outlook revolves around maximizing pleasure and minimizing displeasure, for all those who can experience. There would never be any conscious creature in the first place in the given scenario, so it wouldn't even be an issue. As I already stated, feel free to have some roadkill (as long as the desire to eat him/her didn't lead to his/her death!).

I didn't realize that many people actually thought that this might be an issue of contention.

 

[BoulderHead]

I didn't realize that many people actually thought that this might be an issue of contention.

Me neither, I mean all you have to do is cut away the bruised part and road kill is just as tasty as anything from the slaughterhouse.

 

[sheepdog]

sentient vs non-sentient

My whole ethical outlook revolves around maximizing pleasure and minimizing displeasure, for all those who can experience.

Where did this come from? How did you arrive at this point? I'm new to the thread so maybe I missed some posts where you described your journey from a person without a position to one with this position?

I ask, DD, because it just looks like something you decided was right. And we have seen that anybody can decide anything they like is right or wrong. I admit that I have espoused a similar position in the past. Though it has merits it simply isn't complete by itself.

The principle difficulty I have with this position is that it assumes that we know what suffering is. And so, from this position, it is possible to hold that it is not right to destroy or injure something that you know experiences and therefore can suffer, but it is alright to injure or destroy something that you do not know can experience and therefore suffer. So it divides everything into 2 separate camps that can be treated very differently.

But there are no camps. I cannot injure or destroy anything, whether sentient or not, without effecting something else, sooner or later. Further I cannot have perfect knowledge of what suffers and what does not. So I see that any injury or destruction, even if only to non-sentients, is transmitted widely and must ultimately negatively impact sentients.

Hence the only complete policy is to respect all of Nature. Though I will admit it may be debatable, eating synthetic human flesh does not pass muster in my book because it is an injury to us, destructive of our place in the world, just as eating synthetic animals or synthetic anything is, to one extent or another.

Let's consider another scenario. Suppose that neurosciences progressed so that scientists learned that through genetic engineering they could breed sheep that had their pain/pleasure centers reversed. Conditions that previously caused sheep to suffer would now cause them exquisite pleasure. There is no theoretical obstacle to such a re-engineering of the nervous system of sheep. Would you now also reverse your position and insist that lambs be raised in factory farms? Would this be an acceptable solution to you?

We have the power to created as twisted a caricature of Nature as we please to satisfy any arbitrary position we may choose. That is exactly the danger we face by taking such arbitrary positions in my view.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Suppose that instead of the current factory farms and "free-range" farms, they were replaced with plants in which the animals at the moment of birth were decerebrated and then raised on life support systems without neurological function above the brainstem.
...
Let's consider another scenario. Suppose that neurosciences progressed so that scientists learned that through genetic engineering they could breed sheep that had their pain/pleasure centers reversed.

these are indeed fascinating ideas you present. (strangely enough there are some people who will actually like to argue that the animals want to be tortured and slaughtered, but that's just another of those exceptional bizarrities.) your thoughts here go to the heart of bioethics - what does manipulation of our environment do to us as humans?

Vegetarianism is a manifest rejection of all such clever artificial solutions. It is a determined end to otherwise endless repetition of our prior mistakes. This is why we will always frustrate those who seek the "what if we do this ..." solutions. They would have us continue the status quo with minor adjustments. The vegetarian seeks the end of the status quo. It is a revolution.

this is beautifully put! what is sought isn't a 'fix' (even though that may be of benefit initially) - but 'right' action (oh oh - i can hear the endless burblings in the background to the tune of "what is right?" LOL). one can 'fix' the problem of child labour, by making it legal - but it may not be the best way for us to develop as a species.

Clearly we must act against suffering and at the same time we must preserve the potential to suffer. You see?

absolutely! it is the existence of potential for suffering and the refusal to participate in the infliction of that suffering which is that wonderful paradigm shift you keep speaking of. it is that benefit that we are always at liberty to do for ourselves and our species.

as the buddha said,

O men! you can take life easily but, remember, none of you can give life! So, have mercy, have compassion! And, never forget, that compassion makes the world noble and beautiful.

karuna ...

 

[sheepdog]

appreciated

this is beautifully put! what is sought isn't a 'fix' (even though that may be of benefit initially) - but 'right' action

Thank you very much for understanding so clearly exactly what I was trying to say.